We Get Letters & E-Mail

"Why Can't We All Just Get Along?"

Dear Editor:

This famous (or infamous - depending on your interpretation) quotation from Rodney King and later (on a lighter note) comedian Martin Lawrence, is a timely one for our profession with the recent COSCA merger demand. A great feat for the profession if this comes to fruition. A lot of ego to put on a shelf, to be sure ... or better yet bury, burn, or try to forget about the incessant, ever-present need to be scientifically and/or philosophically "right."

Many chiropractors (present company included) have debated, argued and defended our positions regarding patient care and the direction of the profession, and explained why everyone inside or outside of the profession who doesn't agree with our position on whatever topic is at hand is mortally wrong and "a danger to all who exist in human form." I think you get the idea. Many of us have been there. To quote Larry Markson, and thank you so much for this one, Larry: "What do you get for being right?" That question plays in my head to this day, some four and a half years after I first heard it and, more importantly, asked it of myself. I will ask that question of all in the profession who feel that their way is "The Way."

News flash, docs: There really are chiropractors who don't focus on symptoms and get fantastic results. By results, I mean objectively and subjectively measurable improvements in patients, whether you call it wellness care, lifetime care, maintenance care, or whatever synonym you can come up with for the next big seminar or movement within the profession. It works.

Next news flash: There really are musculoskeletal chiropractors who do incredible work. They get results way above and beyond all the studies that show chiropractic is mediocre for back pain, neck pain, etc. I don't profess to be one of the greatest in the history of the profession at general aches and pains, injury care, and the whole musculoskeletal gamut, but whenever I see these studies, I can't help but wonder, "What were they doing to or with the patients in the study?"

Unfortunate news flash: There are some chiropractors with poor skills and worse yet, poorer intentions with respect to patient care and ethics. This has little to do with treatment plans and money; it has to do with the reality of, "Are you changing lives and helping people, or not?" It really is that simple. I could care less if you do it with one adjustment or 250. I recommend that you have a defensible rationale that is congruent with what the patient's expectations are and then deliver the goods.

All the above scenarios exist and a vast majority of us in the profession understand this beyond any reasonable doubt. So, the question remains: Why can't we all just get along? I love the fact that there are chiropractors who don't adjust, but do nutritional work. I love the extremity adjusters, the HIO docs, the neuron-emotional work, "network," "the flying seven," all the different analyses, drops, the muscle testing, the rehab (yes, even the rehab), the docs in the trenches trying to make sense of insurance and documentation, the coaches who get you to explore yourself and who you are as a chiropractor - it's all good. No, it's awesome!

Get outside of your little "right box" and see what some other docs are doing, and then instead of focusing on what they're doing, get to the why. And share your own why with others, while you're at it. I'm sorry if any of you have ever had a bad experience with a chiropractor of differing philosophy, technique, business or marketing approach. I have some unsolicited advice for you ... get over it. I absolutely accept the support of all chiropractors in the profession. That's pretty cool! This profession and the why behind it are too good for you to get in its way. Appreciate those you don't understand and let's all grow together - differently. Let's all just get along!

Lee Birk, DC
Burkburnett, Texas

Low Cholesterol: Not Always a Good Thing

Dear Editor:

I just read Dr. James Meschino's article about "Helping Patients Achieve a Cholesterol Level Below 150 mg/dl Without Drugs" [April 9, 2007; www.chiroweb.com/archives/25/08/30.html]. I achieved that "ideal" level in 2002 (actually, it was 149). I sincerely hope never to have that experience again. I had that level right after being diagnosed with Lyme disease in July 2002. In December of that same year, I was diagnosed with endometrial cancer.

I have been treating the cancer myself ever since, with a substantial degree of success. My current cholesterol level is 208. I am quite content with that and will keep it around there. If it should fall to around 190, that would be OK, too. I have taken no drugs and had no surgery, and continue in my practice, although I have cut it down considerably.

So, perhaps I had less risk of heart disease back then (which I would debate). But I was also defenseless against Lyme disease and cancer. Oops.

I have had two other patients with cholesterol lowered to this ridiculous level. I wouldn't take exception to it if they were happy, but they weren't. One of them needed steroids to fight off a simple sinus infection that he should have been able to handle on his own. The other has no energy, no libido - nothing approaching the zest for living he had before.

Should we encourage this? I think not. Remember that cholesterol is the substrate for all sex hormones and for glucocorticoids and aldosterone. Cholesterol is also a patching material for damaged arteries. So, rather than lowering it willy-nilly, doesn't it make sense to ascertain why it might be high in the first place? Should we really be surprised at my experiences with lowered cholesterol? My gold standard is my own experience. You may discount this as "anecdotal evidence" if you wish. Emanuel Revici, MD, did pioneering research on the lipid defense in the early 1960s. Read his book, Research in Physiopathology as Basis of Guided Chemotherapy.

Nancy Offenhauser, DC
Amenia, New York